Saturday, January 19, 2013

Proper Gun Control

1. Licensing of all gun owners which would include a penal background
check, a mental health background check, an eye exam, a written and
practical test and approval by the local authorities.

2. Registration of all newly bought firearms which would need to be
renewed after three months and yearly thereafter by presenting the
paperwork and the weapon to the police.
3. Reporting of any lost or stolen firearm within 48 hours.

4. Safe storage: in the home a gun must be on your person or in a safe, in a gun shop, adequate physical and electronic security systems must be in place.

5. Background checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done at the local FFL dealer for a nominal fee.

If firearms are licensed, then the licences ought to be automatically inclusive of concealed carry.

Assault weapon bans (whether they prohibit certain cosmetic features or limit magazine capacity to some arability number) are little more than a glorified political statement, and are in no way conducive to public safety. If you are looking down the barrel of a gun, you are not going to care to inquire whether it has a vertical pistol grip, a flash suppressor, or if it holds more than 7, 10 or 15 rounds when it takes but one to kill.

To revive the tired old gun-to-automobile analogy, cars are licensed, yet the same licence that deems one competent to drive a Geely Panda will also deem one competent to sit behind the wheel of a a McLaren MP4-12C. There are no horsepower restrictions, no ban on red cars (more likely to be driven aggressively, involved in an accident and more likely to be used to exceed the speed limit) or cars without an electronic speed governor (some Japanese and German automakers voluntarily implement such). Much like the automobile, firearms pose great danger in the wrong hands, no matter what variety or form is used. Instead of imposing restrictions which affect all lawful gun owners (even if they do not own assault weapons, they would lose their ability to purchase such) a system ought to be implemented which would place greater scrutiny on the possession and ownership of any form of weapon, and allow largely unrestricted access to those deemed trustworthy.

If a person passes all the tests or qualifications you want, then it should be" Shall Issue" instead of "May Issue." May issue opens up avenues for corruption from city and county officials. It then becomes a "who you know" situation or a "how much money do you have."

"If a person passes all the tests or qualifications you want, then it should be" Shall Issue" instead of "May Issue." May issue opens up avenues for corruption from city and county officials. It then becomes a "who you know" situation or a "how much money do you have." "

Precisely what I was going to say.

A "shall issue" system tests personal trustworthiness, while a "may issue" system tests political connections, regardless of trustworthiness. A friend of mine who was involved in law enforcement (and is a member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police) was denied a permit under a "may issue" which (to my horror) has approved the applications of some deranged (political stalker) individuals who I also know.

Nice example of irresponsible restrictions. Now, here's a modified version with sensible compromises:

1. Licensing of all gun owners which would include a penal background check, a mental health background check, an eye exam, and a written and practical test. This license will expire on death or disqualification. Yearly repeats of the first two checks will be carried out automatically via the registration database.

2. License will include, for a nominal fee and Federally approved test, complete 50-state concealed or open carry.

3. Reporting of any lost or stolen firearm within 48 hours of discovery.

4. Safe storage: in the home a gun must be on your person or in a safe or lockable container, in a gun shop, adequate physical and electronic security systems must be in place.

5. Licence checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done via phone or internet connection, whether from a computer or smartphone app.

6. Complete repeal of NFA restrictions.

This list demands much, but gives the gun owners some restrictions back, in fair and equivalent exchange. Most gun owners won't go for it, but unlike you, I'm trying to do the right thing and give back at least as much as I take.

If you want them to accept the bad, you're going to have to accept the good as well.

Note the "Complete repeal of NFA restrictions" this would make sawn-off shotguns, explosive devices, suppressors, surface to air missiles, mortars, rocket launchers, and real machineguns easily available to any licensed gun owner. This is perhaps the worst idea (outside of the rantings of a few trolls) that has been proposed.

How so? You have one hell of a large amount of tests for eligiblity, and anyone who's disqualified can immediately lose their permit, so why not lose the NFA?

I'd be happy to include a further extension similar to #2 which applies to explosives of all sort.

Dunno about the rest, I'd kind of like to see the second part of #5 become a reality in it's own right. Over here, you can submit renewals for licenses via smartphone (yes, there is indeed "an app for that"). If there's either a minimum of data used or some other way to prevent identity theft etc, wouldn't that be preferable to a FFL-only access like it is now?

I think that stringent time place and manner restrictions would probably keep a lid on the use of explosives if extremely high prices didn't. We could also have a serious discussion about that particular topic and what regulations or limitations we wanted to put on them taken as one part of the puzzle, separate from the other NFA items.

As for the other portions of the NFA--Short Barreled shotguns and rifles, machineguns, and suppressors, their dangers are overblown.

You have argued against limitations on assault weapons and magazine capacity as not being useful as a real solution to our crime problem. Machine guns are just a slight upgrade in horsepower by letting the gun fire as quickly as it cycles rather than as quickly as a person can pull the trigger.

The short barreled devices would be better suited for home defense than longer guns, and the reduced velocities they fire projectiles at should reduce the danger from misses going through as many walls. I know people who use AR pistols for home defense right now for these reasons. If they could legally put a stock on the gun, making it a short barreled rifle, they would be more accurate with the gun and less likely to miss if they had to defend themselves with it.

The usual concern with these devices is that they are more concealable, but lets look at it this way--criminals can, today, saw off a shotgun with nothing but a hack saw, yet we don't see a huge number of them doing this--if they want something concealable, they go with a small handgun that is much smaller and more manageable. Also, there are plenty of AR and AK pistols available which are as concealable as SBR's if not more so, and again we don't see a huge draw from criminals for these.

I don't see why the legality of such guns would increase criminals utilization of them or make those criminals more lethal when they have equivalent options, or the ability to make the guns, available today.

Finally, as to suppressors, what do you see as the danger in them? They are common in other countries--sometimes required to keep ranges from annoying the neighbors, and they don't see blossoming crime waves related to their use.

When multiple armed home invaders come to my home, I want a firearm with a magazine that functions reliably with as many rounds as possible -- just like the police! For handguns, 15 to 17 round magazines are practical and reliable. And for semi-automatic rifles, 20 to 30 round magazines are practical and reliable.

I am not willing to compromise my family's security because gun grabbers are afraid of psychos that lash out in public. If you are afraid of psychos, then arm yourself and train until you are proficient.

I hope I never encounter a psycho in public. If I ever do, I will have the proper tools and training to ensure that my family gets home safely -- or at least give them the best possible chance of getting home safely.

Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's not a valid thing to be prepared for--especially when it would be potentially very lethal if it happened. As for the statistical probability of misuse--this is another danger to be planned for and to take measures to avoid. Take classes; make sure you know how to clear a weapon before touching it; make sure you know how to operate it; follow the rules of safety; etc.

I store extra food and water, have learned to purify water, and have extra seed in case I need to grow food. This would be good prep for any asteroid strike that doesn't cause total destruction. I do it, however, because it's useful prep in case of food shortages/supply line problems caused by natural disasters like floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, etc.

I was an Eagle Scout--I try to be prepared for what I can so that I can be part of the solution, not the problem. Is it empowering? Yes. And I don't see a problem with that. It means that if something goes wrong, I'm empowered to feed myself rather than waiting for FEMA and I'm able to feed those of my neighbors who don't have extra food.

What's the problem with trying to be prepared for personal and community wide disasters?

No problem unless you become obsessive about it. Even then it's your problem. I think being prepared for a highly unlikely event by owning a gun is a mistake. But, if you're a qualified and responsible person, again it's your problem.